University Publication Centre (UPENA)

BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
JOURNAL
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying
Volume 4 No. 1

January 2007

Putrajaya New Town and the Quality of Life

The Impact of Education of Construction Clients

Industrialization and Globalization: Impacts on Regional

Development In Malaysia
Potential Best value Construction in China

Utilizing Satellite-based Remote Sensing Data for Water

Quality Assesment of Inland Water Bodies

Developing Strategic System Planning Framework for Facilities

Management (SSPfFM) in the Health Sector

ISSN 1675-5022
Dasimah Omar
Marie Kashiwagi
Kenneth Sullivan
Dean Kashiwagi
Jamalunlaili Abdullah
Norhaslina Hassan
Ziwei Tang
Kenneth Sullivan
Dean Kashiwagi
Wan Mohd Naim Wan Mohd
Abdul Malek Mohd Noor
Ainon Nisa Othman
Zuhairi Abd Hamid
Mustafa Alshawi

BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
JOURNAL
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying
Volume 4 No. 1

January 2007

ISSN 1675-5022

1. Putrajaya New Town and the Quality of Life

Dasimah Omar

2.

10

The Impact of Education of Construction Clients

Marie Kashiwagi, Kenneth Sullivan and Dean Kashiwagi

3. Industrialization and Globalization: Impacts on Regional Development

In Malaysia
Jamalunlaili Abdullah and Norhaslina Hassan
4. Potential Best value Construction in China
Ziwei Tang, Kenneth Sullivan and Dean Kashiwagi
5. Utilizing Satellite-based Remote Sensing Data for Water Quality
Assesment of Inland Water Bodies
Wan Mohd Naim Wan Mohd, Abdul Malek Mohd Noor
and Ainon Nisa Othman
6. Developing Strategic System Planning Framework for Facilities
Management (SSPfFM) in the Health Sector
Zuhairi Abd Hamid and Mustafa Alshawi

20

33

42

52

BUILT ENVIRONMENT JOUNRAL (BEJ)

Chief Editor
Assoc. Prof. Dr Abdul Hadi Hj Nawawi, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
Editorial Advisory and Review Board
Associate Prof Dr Yusof Abbas, Universiti
Teknolog MARA,
Dr Norhati Ibrahim, Universiti Teknologi
MARA, Malaysia
Dr Hamimah Adnan, Universiti Teknologi
MARA
Ir Dr Zuhairi Abdul Hamid, CREAM
Assoc Prof Dr Jamalunlaili Abdullah,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam
Assoc Prof Dr Ir Siti Hawa Hamzah,
Universiti Teknologi MARA

Professor Dr. Charles Egbu, Salford

University, United Kingdom
Professor Dean Kashiwagi, Arizona
State University, USA

Professor Martin Betts, Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia
Professor Ron Wakefield, Royal
Melbourne Institute of Technology
(RMIT), Australia
Assoc Prof Dr Faridah Yusof, Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
Prof Dr Zainal Mat Saat, Universiti Teknologi
MARA, Malaysia
Assoc Prof Dr Ismail Rahmat, Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Assoc. Prof Dr Dasimah Omar, Universiti

Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Professor Roy Morledge, Nottingham Trent

University, UK
Abd Haris Shamsuddin, Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Professor Dr George Ofori, National

University of Singapore, Singapore

Azizan Supardi, Universiti Teknologi MARA

Dr Zahrah Yahya, Universiti Teknologi MARA

Copyright January 2007 by Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti

Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without prior permission, in writing, from the publisher.
Built Environment Journal is jointly published by Faculty of Architecture, Planning and
Surveying and University Publication Centre (UPENA), Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah
Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
The views and opinion expressed therein and those of the individual authors and the publication
of these statements in the Built Environment Journal do not imply endorsement by the publisher
or the editorial staff. Copyright vested in Universiti Teknologi MARA. Written permission is
required to reproduce any part of this publication.

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

SUBMISSION
All materials submitted for publication must be
original, unpublished work and are not under
consideration for publication elsewhere.
Papers may be submitted by e-mail.
Alternatively, 2 copies of the manuscript together
with a full version on diskette may be submitted to
the Editorial Board. The file should be supplied on
IBM PC compatible disks as MS Word or RTF files.
Address:
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdul Hadi Nawawi
Built Environment Journal
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and
Surveying
Universiti Teknologi MARA
40450 Shah Alam
Selangor, Malaysia.
Editors reserve the right to edit/comment on the
content of the manuscript. If major or substantial
amendments are recommended by the editors the
authors will be given the option to accept or reject the
recommendations (and withdraw participation).
MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION
Language
The manuscript must be submitted in British English
Bahasa Malaysia. If the manuscript is in Bahasa
Malaysia, the abstract must be in British English.
Length
The manuscript should be within the range of 2000
5000 words in Arial font, 12 point type. Authors are
requested to State how many words their paper
contains. The manuscripts should be typed and
double spaced on one side of A4 paper only, with 4
cm margins on the sides, the top and the bottom. All
text should be set aligned justified throughout. The
pages should be numbered in order.
Title Page
The first page of the manuscripts must contain the
full title, name of author(s), designation(s) of
affiliation(s), highest academic qualification and the
present address(es) with the telephone/fax/e-mail
contact information listed.
Abstract and Keywords
The abstract must not exceed 200 words and should
summarise the paper including the main conclusions.
There shall be not more than 5 keywords.
Text
The order when typing manuscripts: title, author(s),
Highest academic qualification, Affiliations,
Abstract, Keywords, Acknowledgments, Main text,
References, and Appendix (if any). Simple language,

short sentences and a good use of headings are

encouraged. Headings should be numbered and the
use of more than three levels of heading should be
avoided. Headings and paragraphs should be
separated by two carriage returns. Text following a
heading should not be indented.
Illustration
Photographs, diagrams and charts should be referred
to as Figure(s) and numbered in the order in which
they are referred to in the text. Maps and diagrams
should be submitted in a form ready for reproduction,
all in legible digital format. Maps, plans and the like
provided on disks should be either TIFF or EPS
format. Please note that illustrations in the journal
shall be printed in black-and-white or gray-scale.
Units
All measurements and data should be given in metric
units or, if other units are used, then the metric
equivalent should be given in parentheses.
Reference
The Harvard system is used. The reference is referred
to in the text by the following manner:
Chow (1999) or (Chow, 1999) and then listed in
alphabetical order at the end of the article. The styles
should follow the examples below:
Betts, M. & Wood-Harper, T. (1994). Re-engineering
Construction: a New Management Research
Construction Management and Economics, 12, 551-6
FFlanagan, R. & Tate, B. (1997). Cost Control in
Building Design, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Kelly, J. (2003). Value Management in PublicPrivate-Partnership Procurement. In Akintoya, A.,
Beck, M. & Hardcastle, C. (eds) Public-PrivatePartnerships. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 59 77.
Bowen, P.A., Hindle, R.D. & Pearl, R.G. (1997). The
Effectiveness of Building Procurement Systems in
the Entertainment of the Client Objectives. In
Proceedings of W-92 Conference on Procurement
Syatems, C.I.B. Publication No. 203.
Government of Malaysia, Total Planning and
Development Guidelines, Department of Town and
Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala
Lumpur, (2nd Printed), 2001.
COPYRIGHT
Once published in the Built Environment Journal, the
copyright including electronic copyrights of the
article is automatically invested with UiTM. The
copyright covers the exclusive use of rights to
reproduce and distribute the article, including
reprints, photography reproductions, microfilm,
electronic publication or any reproduction of a
similar nature and translations. Permission to publish
illustrations must be obtained by the author before
submission. Any acknowledgements should be
included in the figure captions.

Built Environmental Journal

Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-9, 2007

PUTRAJAYA NEW TOWN AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE1

Dasimah Omar
Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, UiTM Shah Alam
ABSTRACT
Town planning should aimed at improving the conditions and opportunities that urban
environment can present wherever possible. One of the overriding intentions of new town
development is to humanise the urban environment by creating lively locations for a balanced
settlement structure with residential areas and an urban diversity of shopping, services,
recreational and cultural facilities. Another principle is to provide the best possible urban
quality of life for every one to live, work and play. The quality of life in a particular area was
a subjective phenomena and that each respondent may have different views or perceptions
with regard to subject matter. The underlying aim of the Total Planning Doctrine is to develop
a community that should be able to meet changes in values within society and be able to
contribute to improving the quality of life, especially in new town development including
Putrajaya. The paper is based on two studies that explored the social and physical
characteristics of Putrajaya in order to measure their relative impacts. Perception surveys were
carried out in 2001 and 2004 to evaluate the trend of quality of life experienced by the
residents. The analysis sought to uncover information related to community life in Putrajaya
which was specifically planned to provide a good quality of life for their inhabitant
continuously until the completion of the development. The findings could be used to address
the future development of Putrajaya and also other new towns. The findings will be useful in
determining the physical planning and quality of life indicators for sustainable development.
Keywords: Quality of life, The Total Planning Doctrine, Community life, Sustainable
development

Introduction
The Government of Malaysia has attempted to provide a policy to keep pace with the rapid
economic growth so as to bring about a better quality of life to the people (Mahathir:1998).
The initiatives have already been taken within the existing planning framework when the
Federal Government adopted The Total Planning Doctrine in 1997. It was prepared by the
Federal Department of Town and Country Planning. The application of this Doctrine has been
included in the development planning of Putrajaya. The paper is based on a research sought to
uncover information related to community life in Putrajaya which specifically planned to
provide a good quality of life. The research was to explore the social and physical
characteristics of Putrajaya in order to measure the relative impacts. A perception survey was
carried out to evaluate the level of quality of life experience by the residents. The findings of
this research could be used to address the future development of Putrajaya and also other new
towns.

Literature Review
Town Planning, New Town Development and Quality of Life
On the whole, town planning must respond to social change, demographic trends, economic
efficiency, and also user needs. Quality of life should be the common goal of urban planning,
more so of new town development (Schewenke: 1999). The physical means of progressing
towards a better quality of life is intended by embracing the concept of sustainable
ISSN 1675-5022
2007 Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, University Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Malaysia

Built Environment Journal

development. Physical land use planning has a major role in achieving sustainable
development. The Planning Doctrine is an action plan focussing on the concept of sustainable
development (Zainuddin: 1999 p.1). To be successful, urban planning policies have to act in
an holistic way rather than by implementing piecemeal solutions. The holistic approach
should consider the importance of an evaluation process and continuous improvements of the
area concerned (Naslund and Ericson: 1999). Brown (1999) states that the effects of
development and planning guidelines on the life of communities were too often being
ignored. Social improvements and well-being are enhanced through co-operation between all
the participants involved in urban planning and urban development with the commitment
towards the quality of the total built environment experienced by urban dwellers. The quality
of life process offers an opportunity to have more input in the urban planning process. After
more than a century now, we find, new towns providing living conditions, among the best in
the world, are in the United States of America, Britain, Singapore and Japan. New towns have
been a great experiment which are highly successful in providing decent housing and healthy
environment for the communities. Nevertheless, we also note that there have been mistakes
and problems made by new towns but through research these could be resolved. The planners
and developers need to address each new town as an individual unique set of characteristics
with its own particular characters and needs.
The new model of urban residential development known as new towns was brought into
the English Planning and Development concept by the 1946 and 1965 New Town Acts
(Morris: 1997). New town is design to be self sufficient. After more than fifty years Howards
social cities size proved valid when the new town committee produced a suggestion that the
optimal normal range of population in a new town is between 30,000 to 50,000 people
(Danang: 1997). The first generation of new town development in Britain consisted of 15 new
towns with 175,000 houses, 35,000,000 sq. ft of factory space, 350 schools, 4,000,000 sq. ft.
office space, 100 pubs, public buildings, several thousand acres of parks and arranged with
playing fields and open space (Morris: 1997). By 1970 British followers of Howard
succeeded in getting government to build new towns. The ideas also spread to United States
as early as 1930. In both countries the new town experiments enjoyed modest success in
providing a relatively high quality of life (Nancy: 2005). As for Hong Kong, although
residential living space in new town is limited, much thought was given to enhancing the
quality of life outside the home (Julie and Dinah: 2002). The quality of life process offers an
opportunity to have more input into the urban planning process (Besleme, Maser and Swain:
1999). In addition, urban areas are planned as public areas and it is important for urban
planners to adjust urban equipment and services to avoid problems for users and providers. To
illustrate this point, Wing (2000) in his research on Hong Kong and Singapore found that
there is much to improve upon in the provision of the overall quality of life, cost of living,
infrastructure, urban amenities, recreational facilities as well as entertainment, culture and
arts. Therefore we can see here that planning and developing a new town is concerned with
the human and social elements in relation to the built environment.
The concept of quality of life can be a useful tool in studying and evaluating the degree
of well-being and equity for living in specific circumstances (Giulietta and Paola: 1999).
Milbrath (1978) states that ...if quality of life is defined as happiness or wellbeing or
satisfaction, it is necessarily subjective. This is further discussed by Marans and Couper
(2000). The concept of quality of life represents more than the private living standards
and refers to all the elements of the conditions in which people live, that is, all their needs and
requirements. This concept has been developed by social scientists to measure and evaluate
peoples wellbeing, satisfaction and happiness. It demands, amongst other things, available
and accessible social and public infrastructure to satisfy the needs of those involved and
affected by it as well as an environment (Giulietta and Paola: 1999). It is of theoretical
interest to explore the relationship of the built environment and the satisfaction level of
different living areas. Campbell, Converse and Rogers (1976) addressed the concept of
quality of life as measuring the people's perceptions, evaluation and satisfaction. Leitmann
2

Putrajaya New Town and the Quality of Life

(1999) listed four reasons for assessing the quality of urban life: a) to make comparisons, b) to
identify problems, c) to develop policies and d) to monitor and evaluate the implementation of
interventions. For many researchers satisfaction was viewed as more definable, more
plausible and more appropriate to measure and compare people's assessments on quality of
life experience (Marans and Couper: 2000).
Possibly, decision making processes must consider views from various disciplines such as
planners, urban designers, engineers, architects and other related professionals such s
sociologists who have knowledge on the human quality of life values necessary for long term
satisfaction. To cite, it was found that more creative planning and design elements led to
greater satisfaction among residents of Singapores new town called Tampines (Seik, Yuen
and Chin: 1999). Urban planning processes have to involve public participation in creating
dream homes within a safe, secure and pleasant environment. Social improvements and well
being are enhanced through co-operation between all the participants involved in urban
planning and urban development with the commitment towards the quality of the total built
environment experienced by urban dwellers. Urban life is supported by the movement and
living function provided by the urban centres which allows people to go anywhere in safety
with dignity (Guillot: 1999; Harrison: 1999). Harrison states that in the list of the worlds
most liveable cities and various quality of life assessments the highest feature required from
an urban area is security. Obviously, the government of Malaysia has attempted to provide a
policy to keep pace with the rapid economic growth so as to bring about a better quality of
life for the people (Mahathir: 1998). Therefore, the Total Planning Doctrine should be able to
contribute to enhance the quality of life by improving the living and working environment of
all people, especially in the new town communities.
Consideration of the social factors is pivotal for the success of the new town development
as a social city and this very much related to the concept of self-containment. This can only
be achieved by policies that take into account the societys needs and through the building of
balanced new settlements rather than the single-useunbalanced extensions to existing
settlements. There is a need for a broader policy for new town development which focuses on
the interests of new large communities and their future. The developers, future residents in the
vicinity, local authority, state, national government and the larger public are influenced the
character of the future growth throughout the state must be considered. If the new town
developments were to provide a framework for better life and environment, the planning
objectives and strategies must be truly inspired. There is a need to have new clearer policies
to guide and build sustainable environments. Sustainability requires specific initiatives and
needs to be coordinated. However, in some cases the environmentally desirable urban forms
might be less desirable in economic and social terms. Wing (2000) in his research on Hong
Kong and Singapore found that there is much to improve on the overall quality of life, cost of
living, infrastructure, urban amenities, recreational facilities as well as culture and arts. Urban
life is generated by the movement and living function provided by the urban centres which
allow people to go anywhere in safety. Rogerson (1999) stated that in the list of the worlds
most liveable cities and various quality of life assessments the highest feature from an urban
area is security.
Quality of Life in Malaysia
The Malaysia Economic Planning Unit (EPU), in its report on the Malaysian Quality of Life
Index (MQLI) 2002, defines quality of life as encompassing personal advances, a healthy
lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge, and attaining a standard of living which
surpasses the fulfillment of the basic and psychological needs of the individual, to achieve a
level of social well being compatible with the nations aspirations. The Malaysian Quality of
Life Index (MQLI) is intended to be a comprehensive measure of welfare and human wellbeing, from a broader perspective which includes not only income but other aspects of life
3

Built Environment Journal

such as working life, family life, transport and communications, health, education, and public
safety.
The Malaysian Quality of Life 2004 is the third report to describe the progress and for the
first time examined the quality of life at the state level. The Malaysian quality of life, as
measured by the Malaysian Quality of Life Index improved over the 1990-2004 period,
increasing by 10.9 points. This improvement in the quality of life is also reflected in the
achievement of all of the Millennium Development Goals ahead of the target date of 2015
(Fong Chan Onn: 2007). In year 2004 Malaysia has gone up 15 positions to rank 36th among
101 countries in the New York Economist Intelligence Units quality of life index for 2005.
The determinant used by included cost of living, leisure and culture, economy, environment,
freedom, health, infrastructure, risk and safety and climate. The overall improvement in the
economic development of the nation was also reflected in the increase in the quality of life of
the population at the state level. This is attributed to various strategies at the federal and state
levels. In line with this, the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010) sets out to achieve a stronger
and more value-added economy, while giving substantial focus to socio-economic issues and
uplifting the quality of life for all. The government remains committed towards improving the
quality of life of all Malaysians.
The Total Planning Doctrine
The Total Planning Doctrine is a new approach to the planning and design which is expected
to guide the physical planning system focusing on the concept of sustainable development.
This is a paradigm shift that should enable physical and social planning to be integrated with
moral and spiritual values that will not separate economic growth from social needs and
justice that will contribute towards sustainability and increase the quality of life for society.
The urban sustainability concept is absorbed into the Total Planning and Development
Principles. This has given rise to new emphases in planning practice especially when
government started building the new towns where man is the focus of development. This
Doctrine calls for the maintenance of the trinity of the relationships between Man and his
Creator, Man and Man, and Man and Environment. It has been translated and spatialised to be
the underlying principle in the formulation of planning guidelines and other planning
activities. There are 14 main values and 77 principles in the implementing guidelines and they
have been applied holistically in the development of Putrajaya (Wan Muhamad Mukhtar:
2001; Zainuddin: 2000).
The Federal Government has also endorsed the concept of holistic development for land
use planning which is known as The Total Planning Doctrine. This Doctrine calls for the
maintenance of the trinity relationship between Man and his Creator, Man and Man, and Man
and Environment in order to attain balanced and sustained development economically,
socially, spiritually and environmentally. It postulates that man is the focal point for
development. This Doctrine has given rise to new emphasis on planning practice and it sets
out guidelines in physical planning terms. It is a new approach to the planning and design
which is expected to guide the physical planning system focusing on the concept of
sustainable development. This is a paradigm shift that should enable physical and social
planning to be integrated with moral and spiritual values that will not separate economic
growth from social needs and justice that will contribute towards sustainability and increase
the quality of life for society. The application of this Doctrine has been included in the
development planning of Putrajaya, the new Federal Government administrative centre.
Hence, the future planning and development, including the new towns, must be based on this
Doctrine to achieve Vision 2020. The Doctrine has embedded the underlying premise of
attaining sustainable communities.
Traditionally, planning was based on physical planning criteria. However, with The Total
Planning Doctrine, the future cities and new towns require a new set of planning standards
4

Putrajaya New Town and the Quality of Life

and the final outcomes will be reflected in the design of human settlements. The Doctrine has
embedded the underlying premise of attaining sustainable communities. Planning and
development need to provide a living environment that is socially beneficial with sufficient
and optimum provision of infrastructure, utilities such as clean water supply, amenities such
as cleansing, electricity and drainage systems; public facilities, recreational spaces and
commercial and industrial centres. The underlying aim of the Doctrine is to develop a
community who should be able to meet changes in values within society and be able to
contribute to improving the quality of life, especially in new town development.

Research Aim
The research is to evaluate the trend of quality of life satisfaction experienced by the
residents. The first research was carried out in 2001 that was the first year of settlement in
Putrajaya and the second research was in 2004.

Research Objectives
The objectives of the research are:
a)
to identify the physical characteristic of Putrajaya
b)
to evaluate the residents trend of quality of life satisfaction level
c)
to develop related policies

Research Methodology
The research sought to uncover information related to trend of quality of life in Putrajaya
experienced by the community. From 1500 questionnaires distributed there were 222
respondents for the first study. For the second study a total of 2500 questionnaires were
distributed and received 123 respondents. Both research applied the mail survey method with
the self addressed envelope of the researcher were distributed into the mail box of the
randomly selected residents. This paper presents the data analysis from both perception
surveys. The results and the major findings pertaining to the trend of quality of life in
Putrajaya development are presented. The discussion in this paper focuses on the components
of the built environment which contribute to the quality of life as experienced by the residents
of Putrajaya. The analysis is presented in two parts. Part one is on physical characteristics of
Putrajaya, followed by the general analysis that discusses the background of respondents and
the overall perceptions on the quality of life achieved in part two.
Physical Characteristics of Putrajaya
Malaysian Federal Government planned Putrajaya as a new administrative capital city as
early as 1981. It was the first major intelligent garden city developed in the country. Putrajay
has a total area of 14,780 hectares where about 30 per cent of the area is for the administrative
centre. The physical planning was to ensure that it is a sustainable city providing high quality
living to its population. The Federal Government set up Putrajaya Corporation in 1996 to
monitor the mega project implementation. Putrajaya Corporation Act 1995 (Act 536) came
into effect on January 5, 1996 and listed the power of the Corporation which is to administer
and manage the Putrajaya Corporation Area on behalf of the Federal Government. The
corporation functions like a local authority to ensure the success of Putrajaya. It is expected to
have 570,000 population where 250,000 will live in the core area and the remaining 320,000
in the surrounding residential areas upon completion.
With the Garden City concept, the area is into twenty precincts, of which five are in the
Core Area included Government, Commercial, Civic, Mixed Development, and Sports and
Recreational. The remaining 15 are precincts of various sizes also known as peripheral area.
5

Built Environment Journal

Twelve of the 15 precincts make up the residential neighbourhoods. Each unit was planned
for some 3,000 dwellings or 15,000 population with a mix of low, medium and high cost
housing and a variety of designs. A total of 67,000 homes of varying ranges, sizes, types and
densities have been planned. Each neighborhood is equipped with necessary public facilities
and amenities. Among the facilities provided in the residential areas are schools, hospitals,
shopping centres, mosques, multipurpose halls, learning centres and parks. This fulfilled the
underlying principle of the doctrine towards more sustainable communities and a better
quality of living environment.
Trend Analysis of the Quality of Life
General Analysis
Both research based on the same survey questionnaire. The first part is to demonstrate the
results of data gathered from Section A of the original survey questionnaire. The data
retrieved includes age, race, gender, length of stay, types of houses, employments by
occupation, problems faced by respondents and suggestions for improvements. The summary
of the results from the respondents to the survey questionnaire is tabulated and discussed
below. The analysis was considered important because their perceptions would demonstrate
trend of the quality of life there as they experienced living there.
The 2004 research found that more than 78 percent of the total respondents were married
compared to 73 percent in 2001. The majority of respondents from both studies were having a
family size of four which are lower than the national standard of five. This is important in
relation to the housing design and community facilities standards. Both studies found that
majority of respondents were in the age group of between 20-40 years old. In terms of
duration of stay in Putrajaya, it was found that for 2001 study majority were with two months
stay. However in 2004 the highest percentage which was about 30 percent found to have been
staying for about two years.
Respondents Perceptions
In the second part, the analysis is focused on Section B of the original survey questionnaires
which retrieved information on respondents perceptions. This is concerning the community
facilities, infrastructure services, commercial facilities, open space and surrounding areas,
feeling safe in the living area and safety of property, feeling about living in the particular new
town, sense of neighbourhood community, adequate comfort in housing, mobility and public
transportation service. Their perception is assumed to be an important indicator for a
particular new town as an ideal or unsatisfactory place to live in. The respondents had
freedom to make choices regarding the environment. The residential environment is important
in the analysis of the quality of life because of the role it plays in human experience. This part
of the research attempts to measure the effect of the environment on the respondents life and
to compile and compare the quality of life to be achieved in future years. Perceptual
evaluation of the indicators was tabled to illustrate quality of life dimensions.
The findings from residents perceptions may become one of the ways in getting people
involved so as to ensure the continued success of their community. The survey questionnaire
asked whether the respondents perceptions were completely satisfactory, satisfactory,
average, unsatisfactory and completely unsatisfactory with regards to the indicators used to
quantify the quality of their living environment. Tables 1-6 show the findings of both
research. Quality of life encompasses the fulfillment of all human needs such as a satisfactory
standard of material life, health, education, security, the satisfaction of living in a clean
environment as well as the enjoyment of the aesthetic and the spiritual.

Putrajaya New Town and the Quality of Life

Table 1 shows in 2001 research, seven of the public facilities listed were rated as
completely satisfactory by the respondents compared to only place of worship in 2004. These
were important facilities provided by the government to ensure good living environment for
the communities. In 2004 the research found that majority of respondents were satisfied with
the provision of primary schools, secondary schools, smart school, police service, fire service
hospital and clinics. They rated entertainment center, religious schools and higher learning
institution as unsatisfactory. These three facilities were not available during the time of both
research.
Table 1: Public Facilities
Public Facilities
Primary Schools
Secondary Schools
Smart Schools
Religious Schools
Higher Learning Institution
Place of Worship
Entertainment Centre
Police Service
Fire Service
Hospital
Clinic

Perceptions in 2001
Completely satisfactory
Completely satisfactory
Satisfactory
Completely unsatisfactory
Completely unsatisfactory
Completely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Completely satisfactory
Completely satisfactory

Perceptions in 2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Completely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

Based on the findings there is a need to provide more and better facilities for the
communities in order to change their perception to reach the completely satisfactory level.
As for shopping facilities the majority from respondents were unsatisfied with the
provision of lower and higher order commercial services as shown in 2001 study. (Please
refer to Table 2). However in 2004 the perception on for the lower order goods improved. As
for the higher order goods majority of them had to go to nearby towns. The research found
that their living situation were harder after moving into Putrajaya because many of them were
used to living in Kuala Lumpur where shopping facilities were abundance and within easy
reach.
Table 2: Shopping facilities
Shopping facilities Perceptions in 2001 Perceptions in 2004
Lower order goods
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Higher order goods
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Table 3: Infrastructure facilities
Infrastructure
Electricity
Water supply
Telephone

Perceptions in 2001
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

Perceptions in 2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

Both studies shows that infrastructure facilities (refer to Table 3), open space/playground
facilities as shown in Table 4 and environment (refer to table 5) were well served in Putrajaya
and are at the satisfactory level.

Built Environment Journal

Table 4: Playground and Open Space Facilities
Open
space/playground
Childrens playground
Public open space
Other open spaces
Landscaping

Perceptions in 2001
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

Perceptions in 2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

Table 5: Environment
Environment
Perceptions in 2001 Perceptions in 2004
Safety of self and properties
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Aesthetics of the surrounding area
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Cleanliness of the area
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Landmarks
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Signage
satisfactory
satisfactory
Table 6: Social Aspects
Social aspects
Perceptions in 2001 Perceptions in 2004
Social activities
Average
Satisfactory
Sense of community
Average
Satisfactory
Feelings about living in Putrajaya
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Table 6 demonstrated that in 2001 majority of respondents rated their social activities and
sense of community to at the average level. This may be due to the length of stay, whereby
most of them were new to each other and also lack of social programmes and activities being
organized for the community. However, the 2004 study found that they were satisfied with all
the social aspects of life.

Conclusion
The paper was intended to demonstrate the trend of quality of life through the perceptions of
those staying in Putrajaya.. The perception study of the quality of life was considered as a
significant role in Putrajaya for being the first city development in the country to be guided by
the Total Planning Doctrine. The findings of both studies showed that there are several
planning and implementation issues that need to be reviewed in order to achieve the planning
goals and objectives which lead towards a better quality of life. It is recommended that more
research to be done on how to integrate quality of life dimensions into overall Putrajaya
development as well as another new developments. It is hoped that town planners could
devise better strategies to enhance the quality of life in the communities.

References
Berry, B.J.L., et.al (1974). Land use, Urban Form and Environmental Quality, Research
paper 155, Department of Geography, University of Chicago.
Besleme,K., Maser, E. & Swain, D. (1999). Community Indicator Projects: Practical Tools
For Addressing Quality of Life in Communities, In Yuan, Yuen & Low, eds., Urban
Quality of Life, Critical Issues and Options, National University of Singapore.
Capbell, A., Converse, P., & Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life, New York:
Sage.
Cullingworth, J. B. and V. Nadin (2006). Town and Country Planning in the UK, 14th
Edition, Routledge, Madison.
8

Putrajaya New Town and the Quality of Life

Danile, T., (1990). Measuring the Quality of the Natural Environment: A Psychological
Approach, American Psychologist, May 1990, Vol. 45 (5).
Dasimah Bt Omar (2004). Quality of Life in Putrajaya: Trend Analysis, Research paper,
IRDC, UiTM, Shah Alam.
Dasimah Bt Omar (2001). Quality of Life in Putrajaya: Trend Analysis, Research paper,
IRDC, UiTM, Shah Alam
Dasimah Bt Omar (2002) New Town Development in Peninsular Malaysia: Case Studies of
New Town Development by State Economic Development Corporations, PhD Thesis
(unpublished), Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
Dissart, J.C. and Deller S.C. (2000). Quality of Life in the Planning Literature, Journal of
Planning Literature (FJPL) Vol. 15, 1 (August).
Edward, H.R. (1993). The Role of the Residential Environment in Defining the Quality of Life,
University of Illonois, (Ph.D Thesis).
Esa Hj. Mohamad (1997). Putrajaya: The Administrative Capital City in the 21st Century, in
Malaysia Today, (ASLI), Pelanduk Publication, Petaling Jaya.
Fong Chan Onn (2007). Statement by Honourable Datuk Seri Dr Fong Chan Onn, Minister of
Human Resources, Malaysia ASPAG Ministerial Meeting ILC 96, 13 June 2007,
Geneva.
Government of Malaysia. (2005). Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010.
Government of Malaysia. (2005). Malaysian Quality of Life 2004, Economic Planning Unit,
Prime Ministers Department, Malaysia.
Government of Malaysia (2004). Putrajaya Development Corporation, Briefing Notes.
Government of Malaysia (2001). Eighth Malysia Plan, Kuala Lumpur, Percetakan Negara
Berhad.
Government of Malaysia (2001). Total Planning and Development Guidelines, Department of
Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, (2nd Printed).
Government of Malaysia (1999). Malaysian Quality of Life, Economic Planning Unit, Prime
Ministers Department, Malaysia.
Guillot, X. (1999). Urbanisam as a Way of Life in the Age of the Electronic City, World
Conference on Model Cities, Singapore.
Gwilliam, M. (1993).Sustainability in Action, in Blowers, R. (ed) Planning for Sustainable
Environment, A Report by the Town and Country Planning Association, London,
Earthscan Publication.
Hall, P. (2002). Urban and Regional Planning, Routledge, Madison.
Julie Brown and Dinah Gardner (2002). Hong Kong and Macau, Rough Guides, Hong Kong.
Leitmann, J. (1999). Can City QOL Indicators be Objective and Relevant? Towards a Tool
for Sustaining Urban Development, National University of Singapore.
Mahathir B. Mohamad (1998). The way Forward, London: Weidnfeld & Nicolson.
Marans, W.R. and Cooper, M. (2000). Measuring the Quality of Community Life: A Program
for Longtudinalmand Comaparative International Research, Quality of Life in Cities:
21st Century QOL, The Second International Conference, Singapore, March 2000.
Nancy Kleniewski (2005). Cities and Society, Wiley, Blackwell.
Philip Berke, David R. Godschalk and Edward J. Kaiser (2006). Urban Land Use Planning,
University of Illinois Press.
Rogerson, R.J. (1999). Quality of Life, Place and Global City, Yuan, Yuen & Low, eds., in
Urban Quality of Life, Critical Issues and Options, National University of Singapore.
Wan Muhamad Mukhtar Mohd Noor (2001). Planning for an Urbanising Nation: Towards a
Better Quality of Life, National Symposium on Malaysian Community: Issues and
Challenges for the 21st Century, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 22-24 July 2001.
Wing, H.C. (2000). Planning Policies and Quality of Life in Hong Kong and Singapore,
Quality of Life in Cities: 21st Century QOL, The Second International Conference,
Singapore, March 2000.
Zainuddin bin Muhammad (2001). Towards Strengthening the Planning System in Malaysia,
Keynote Paper, Towards Strengthening the Planning System in Malaysia, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, 19-20 March 2001.
9